Marx’s Critique of Locke’s Labor Theory of Property in *Capital*

The founder of the labor theory of property was the English philosopher John Locke. In his political-philosophical work *Two Treatises of Government*, Locke for the first time explicitly advanced the view that “labor gives title to property.” Locke held: “Man, by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person and the actions or labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property.” That is, the laborer, as the proprietor of his own person and of the labor performed by that person, is entitled to the ownership of the result of that labor, namely the product of labor. In this way, Locke established a juridical inner connection between capitalist private property and labor, i.e., “the identity of property and labor.” This identity constitutes the core argument of his labor theory of property. It is precisely for this reason that Marx’s critique of that theory is directed against “the identity of property and labor.”

劳动所有权理论的创始人是英国哲学家约翰·洛克。洛克在其政治哲学著作《政府论》中，第一次明确提出了“劳动给予所有权”的观点。洛克认为：“人既是自己的主人，自身和自身行动或劳动的所有者，本身就还具有财产的基本基础。”也就是说，劳动者作为自己人身的所有者，以及由自己的人身所进行的劳动的所有者，理应拥有对这种劳动的结果即劳动产品的所有权。就这样，洛克建立起了资本主义私人所有权与劳动之间在法权上的内在联系，即“所有权与劳动的同一性”，这种同一性构成了其劳动所有权理论的核心论据。正因为如此，马克思对该理论的批判就是针对“所有权与劳动的同一性”展开的。

The so-called “separation of property and labor”

所谓“所有权与劳动的分离”

A widely circulated view in current academic circles holds that the reason Marx disagreed with Locke’s use of “the identity of property and labor” to justify capitalist private property is that Marx discovered that in capitalist society the above-mentioned “identity” no longer exists, or more precisely, has dialectically transformed into its opposite, i.e., “the separation of property and labor.” Consequently, Locke’s labor theory of property, as a theory out of touch with actual conditions, can no longer serve to defend capitalist private property. For example, the Japanese scholar Mochizuki Seiji states that, according to Marx’s judgment, “the identity of property and labor” has become “an outright illusion” in capitalist society. That is, if this “identity” is called the “first law of appropriation,” then, with the continuous generation of surplus capital, this law has been replaced by the “second law of appropriation,” i.e., “the thorough separation of property and labor.” The latter means that “labor appears as negated property, or property appears as the negation of the alien character of other people’s labor.”

当前学术界广为流传的一种意见认为，马克思之所以不同意洛克用“所有权与劳动的同一性”来论证资本主义私人所有权的做法，是因为马克思发现，在资本主义社会中上述“同一性”已经不复存在，或者更确切地说，已经辩证地转化为它的对立面即“所有权与劳动的分离”。正因为如此，洛克的劳动所有权理论作为一个与现实状况脱节的理论已经无法达成对资本主义私人所有权的辩护。例如，日本学者望月清司表示，根据马克思的判断“所有权与劳动的同一性”在资本主义社会中已经成为“不折不扣的假象”。也就是说，如果把这种“同一性”称为“第一条领有规律”的话，那么，随着剩余资本的不断产生，这条规律已经为“第二条领有规律” 即“所有权与劳动的彻底分离”所取代，后者意味着“劳动表现为被否定的所有权，或者说，所有权表现为对他人劳动的异己性的否定”。

The reason academia identifies “the separation of property and labor (in capitalist society)” as Marx’s positive view is that the latter indeed directly discusses this separation in too many places with an incontrovertible tone. Among them, the most famous is undoubtedly the following expression: “Property originally appeared as based on one’s own labor. Now property appears as the right to appropriate the labor of others, as the inability of labor to appropriate its own product. The complete separation between property and labor, or between wealth and labor, now appears as the consequence of the law that began with their identity.”

学术界之所以会把“所有权与劳动（在资本主义社会中）的分离”指认为马克思的正面看法，是因为后者确实在太多地方以一种不容置喙的口吻直接谈论了这种分离。其中，最著名的无疑是下面的表述：“所有权最初表现为以自己的劳动为基础。现在所有权表现为占有他人劳动的权利，表现为劳动不能占有它自己的产品。所有权同劳动之间，进一步说，财富同劳动之间的完全分离，现在表现为以它们的同一性为出发点的规律的结果。”

This passage appears not only in the *Grundrisse* but also almost verbatim in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–63*, and finally, with slight modifications, in Volume I of *Capital* (the first and second German editions, as well as the third German edition edited and reviewed by Engels, and the English and fourth German editions). Moreover, in nearly ten places across the manuscripts for *Capital*, Marx mentions formulations similar to “the separation of labor and property,” “the separation of property from labor,” “the absolute separation of labor and property,” and “the separation, rupture, and opposition between labor and property.”

这段表述不仅出现在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中，而且几乎原封不动地出现在《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》中，最后稍作修改还出现在《资本论》第一卷（德文第一版、第二版以及由恩格斯编辑审订的德文第三版，英文、德文第四版）中。此外，马克思还在《资本论》手稿群的近十个地方提到了类似于“劳动和所有权的分离”“所有权同劳动相分离”“劳动和所有权的绝对分离”“劳动和所有权之间的分离、破裂和对立”等表述。

Does this mean that the key point of Marx’s critique of Locke’s labor theory of property is to point out the phenomenon of “the separation of property and labor” in capitalist society and thereby refute Locke’s use of “the identity of property and labor” to justify capitalist private property? The matter may not be as simple as it appears on the surface.

这是不是意味着，马克思对洛克劳动所有权理论批判的要点，就是指出了资本主义社会中“所有权与劳动的分离”这个现象，并以此驳斥了洛克用“所有权与劳动的同一性”来论证资本主义私人所有权的做法呢？事情可能没有表面上看到的这么简单。

Few have noticed the changes in the French edition of Volume I of *Capital*. The above-mentioned most famous and repeatedly appearing passage by Marx on “the separation of property and labor” was deleted in the French edition, the last version of Volume I of *Capital* revised during his lifetime.

《资本论》第一卷法文版的改动很少有人注意到，上述马克思关于“所有权与劳动的分离”的最著名的、反复出现的表述在他生前修订的《资本论》第一卷的最后一个版本即法文版中被删除了。

Specifically, in the second German edition of Volume I of *Capital*, under the subheading “Chapter Twenty-Two: Transformation of Surplus-Value into Capital. 1. The Capitalist Process of Production on a Progressive Scale. The Transformation of the Laws of Property in Commodity Production into the Laws of Capitalist Appropriation,” the entire paragraph—including “the separation of property and labor has become the necessary consequence of a law that apparently started from their identity”—was completely deleted in the French edition under the subheading “Chapter Twenty-Four: Transformation of Surplus-Value into Capital. 1. Reproduction on a Progressive Scale. How the Property Right of Commodity Production Is Transformed into the Capitalist Right of Appropriation.” It was replaced by only the following sentence: “Here even the semblance of an exchange of equivalents, of an exchange of the products of the exchangers’ labor, disappears.”

具体而言，在《资本论》第一卷德文第二版《第二十二章 剩余价值转化为资本 1.规模扩大的资本主义生产过程。商品生产所有权规律转变为资本主义占有规律》小标题下的——包括“所有权和劳动的分离，成了似乎是一个以它们的同一性为出发点的规律的必然结果”在内的整段话，在法文版《第二十四章 剩余价值转化为资本 1.规模扩大的再生产。商品生产所有权如何转变为资本主义占有权》小标题下被完全删除，取而代之只有以下一句话：“在这里，甚至等价物交换、交换者的劳动产品的交换的假象也看不见了。”

Importantly, this deletion was not accidental. On the contrary, in the two final lists of revisions he left—the *Table of Revisions for Volume I of Capital* and the *Table of Revisions for the American Edition of Volume I of Capital*—as well as in a personally annotated copy of the second German edition, Marx repeatedly emphasized that any future revision of this part must be “translated” or “handled” according to the French edition. Furthermore, another similar expression in the first and second German editions of *Capital*, “the separation of the product of labor from labor itself,” was replaced in the French edition by the new expression “the separation of the product from the producer.” Likewise, this revision was confirmed in both *Tables of Revisions* and the annotated copy of the second German edition.

重要的是，这种删改并不是偶然的。相反，马克思在最后留下的两个修改意见表——《对〈资本论〉第一卷的修改意见表》和《对〈资本论〉第一卷美国版的修改意见表》以及一个写满批注的德文第二版自用本中再三强调，将来对这一部分的进一步修订必须按照法文版来“翻译”或“处理”。此外，《资本论》德文第一版、第二版中的另一处类似的表述“劳动产品和劳动本身的分离”也被法文版中的新表述“产品和生产者的分离”替代。同样地，这部分修改在两个《修改意见表》及德文第二版自用本中也得到了确认。

That is to say, formulations such as “the separation of property and labor” and “the separation of the product from labor” were either deleted or replaced by “the separation of the product (i.e., property) from the producer (i.e., the laborer).” These revisions indicate that if, when writing the *Grundrisse*, the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–63*, and even the first and second German editions of *Capital*, Marx still confused concepts like labor and the laborer, then in the process of revising the French edition, his use of these concepts had reached a level of precision. At that point, he clearly realized that the so-called “separation of property and labor (in capitalist society)” was inaccurate, or strictly speaking, erroneous.

也就是说，诸如“所有权与劳动的分离”“产品与劳动的分离”的表述，要么被删除了，要么被“产品（即所有权）与生产者（即劳动者）的分离”所替代。这些修改表明，如果马克思在写作《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》乃至《资本论》德文第一版、第二版的时候还存在着对劳动、劳动者等概念的混用的话，那么，在法文版的修订过程中，马克思对上述概念的使用已经达到了精确的程度。这时候，他清晰地意识到，所谓 “所有权与劳动（在资本主义社会中）的分离”的表述并不准确，或者严格说来是错误的。

The new content of “the identity of property and labor” in capitalist society

“所有权与劳动的同一性”在资本主义社会中的新内涵

What truly belongs to Marx’s view is that in capitalist society, property and labor are not separated; on the contrary, “the identity of property and labor” still holds formally. However, the content of this “identity” has undergone a fundamental change. It is no longer, as Locke claimed in his labor theory of property, identical with the laborer, but rather identical with the laborer’s opposite, the capitalist. Marx points out that this identity consists of “two special phenomena”: first, “labor belongs to the capitalist,” and second, “the product is the property of the capitalist.”

真正属于马克思的观点是，在资本主义社会中，所有权与劳动并未分离，相反，“所有权与劳动的同一性”在形式上仍然成立。但是，这种“同一性”在内涵上已经发生了根本改变，它已经不是如洛克在劳动所有权理论中所声称的那样，同一于劳动者，而是同一于劳动者的对立面即资本家。马克思指出，这种同一性由“两个特殊现象”组成，一是“劳动属于资本家”，二是“产品是资本家的所有物”。

The first phenomenon is that in capitalist production, labor belongs to the capitalist. This is a major thesis of Marx concerning the character of modern labor. This thesis does not appear only occasionally in isolated places in his works, but repeatedly and frequently in the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858)*, Notebook III, p. 42; Notebook IV, p. 47; in the *Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Manuskript 1861–1863)*, Notebook I, pp. 34, 36, 49, 52; Notebook II, pp. 59, 74; Notebook III, p. 95a/A; Notebook IV, p. 152; Notebook X, p. 425; Notebook XVIII, p. 1111; Notebook XXI, pp. 1310, 1323; Notebook XXII, p. 1396; in the *Das Kapital (Manuskript 1863–1865)*, Book One, pp. 24, 462, 466, 469a, 469h, 469k, 469m; and in Volume One of *Capital* (standard edition), pp. 147, 148, 156, 499, 547, and elsewhere. That is to say, it appears dozens of times in *Capital* and its associated manuscripts.

首先是第一个现象，在资本主义生产中，劳动属于资本家。这是马克思关于现代劳动特征的重大论断。这个论断不是一两次偶然地出现在其著作的个别地方，而是层出叠见于《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》第Ⅲ笔记本第42页、第Ⅳ笔记本第47页，《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》第Ⅰ笔记本第34、36、49、52页、第Ⅱ笔记本第59、74页、第Ⅲ笔记本第95a/A页、第Ⅳ笔记本第152页、第Ⅹ笔记本第425页、第ⅩⅤⅢ 笔记本第1111页、第ⅩⅩⅠ 笔记本第1310、1323页、第ⅩⅩⅡ 笔记本第1396页，《资本论（1863—1865年手稿）》第一册第24、462、466、469a、469h、469k、469m页以及《资本论》第一卷（通行版）第147、148、156、499、547页等处，也就是说，在《资本论》及其手稿群中就出现了数十次之多。

So how should we understand “labor belongs to the capitalist”? Marx distinguishes two concepts: “the bearer of labor” and “the owner of labor.” It is true that in any social form the laborer is the bearer of labor, but this does not necessarily mean that he is the owner of labor. In the capitalist mode of production, labor exists as an attribute of the commodity labor-power, or more precisely, as the use-value of the commodity labor-power. The commodity labor-power, like any other commodity, has two attributes: exchange-value and use-value. From the moment the capitalist purchases the commodity labor-power, he has already obtained its use-value by paying its exchange-value, and “the use-value of labor-power is labor itself.” Therefore, after the sale of labor-power, “labor no longer belongs to the laborer himself before it begins”; when the laborer actually starts to work, “the use-value of his labor-power, i.e., the use of labor, labor, belongs to the capitalist.”

那么，如何理解“劳动属于资本家”呢？马克思区分了两个概念，“劳动的承担者”与“劳动的所有者”。诚然，在任何一种社会形态下，劳动者都是劳动的承担者，但是，这并不意味着他必然是劳动的所有者。在资本主义生产方式中，劳动是作为劳动力商品的属性而存在的，更确切地说，是作为劳动力商品的使用价值而存在的。劳动力商品与其他任何商品一样具有交换价值和使用价值两个属性。从资本家购买劳动力商品的那一刻起，他就已经通过支付这个商品的交换价值取得了它的使用价值，而“劳动力的使用价值即劳动本身”。因此，在劳动力买卖之后，“劳动在劳动开始以前就已经不再属于劳动者本人”；在劳动者真正开始劳动的时候，“他的劳动力的使用价值，即劳动力的使用，劳动，就属于资本家了”。

The second phenomenon is that in capitalist production, the product is the capitalist’s property. This phenomenon emerges as the necessary consequence of the first. Since all elements of the labor process—not only the means of labor and the object of labor, but also the labor itself borne by the laborer—are the capitalist’s property, this labor process is nothing other than the process by which the capitalist uses “the labor that now also belongs to him” to process “the means of production that already belong to him” and transform the latter into a new product. Consequently, the result of this process, the product of labor, “naturally belongs to him.”

其次是第二个现象，在资本主义生产中，产品是资本家的所有物。这个现象是作为第一个现象的必然结果出现的。既然劳动过程的一切要素——不仅劳动资料、劳动对象，而且由劳动者承担的劳动本身——都是资本家的所有物，那么，这个劳动过程无非是资本家用“现在也归他所有的劳动”来处理“已经归他所有的生产资料”并将后者转化为一种新产品的过程，那么，这个过程的结果即劳动产品就“理所当然归他所有”。

Marx points out that it is precisely the combination of these two special phenomena that constitutes the true content of the proposition “the identity of ownership and labor” within the capitalist mode of production: “The worker performs this labor, but his labor belongs to capital… and the product in which this labor is objectified is the new form in which capital manifests itself.” In short, both ownership and labor belong to the capitalist, or, ownership and labor are identical in the capitalist. This identity is “the identity between ownership and labor (realized in the person of the capitalist).”

马克思指出，正是上述两个特殊现象合起来构成了“所有权与劳动的同一性”这个命题在资本主义生产方式中的真正内涵：“工人完成这个劳动，但是他的这个劳动是属于资本的……而这个劳动对象化而成的产品，是资本借以表现的新形态。”简言之，所有权与劳动一样都属于资本家，或者说，所有权与劳动同一于资本家，此二者的同一性是“所有权与劳动之间（实现在资本家身上）的同一性”。

The Decisive Critique of Locke’s Theory of Labor-Based Ownership

对洛克劳动所有权理论的决定性批判

The point that “ownership and labor are identical (realized in the person of the capitalist)” constitutes the core argument of Marx’s opposition to Locke’s theory of labor-based ownership.

“所有权与劳动之间（实现在资本家身上）的同一性”这一点，构成了马克思反对洛克劳动所有权理论的核心论据。

In Marx’s view, the error of Locke’s theory of labor-based ownership does not lie in the fact that the “identity of ownership and labor” it proclaims has already departed from the reality of capitalist society, where “ownership and labor are separated.” Rather, it lies in the fact that its interpretation of “the identity of ownership and labor” has already departed from the reality of capitalist society.

在马克思看来，洛克劳动所有权理论的错误不在于，它所标榜的“所有权与劳动的同一性”已经脱离了资本主义社会“所有权与劳动的分离”的实际，而在于它对“所有权与劳动的同一性”的解释已经脱离了资本主义社会的实际。

This is because the “labor gives ownership” proposed by this theory attempts to use “the identity between ownership and labor (realized in the person of the laborer),” i.e., “the identity of ownership and the laborer,” to justify the legitimacy of capitalist private ownership. However, Marx points out that in the small-scale production of pre-capitalist society, “the identity between ownership and labor (realized in the person of the laborer)” was indeed valid. But in capitalist production, although “the identity of ownership and labor” still holds formally, its content has been transformed into “the identity between ownership and labor (realized in the person of the capitalist).” This new identity of ownership and labor implies “the separation of ownership from the laborer.”

这是因为，这种理论提出的“劳动给予所有权”是试图用“所有权与劳动之间（实现在劳动者身上）的同一性”即“所有权与劳动者的同一性”来论证资本主义私人所有权的合法性。但是，马克思指出，在前资本主义社会的小生产中，“所有权与劳动之间（实现在劳动者身上）的同一性”确实是成立的，不过，在资本主义生产中，尽管“所有权与劳动的同一性”在形式上仍然成立，但在内涵上已经转变为“所有权与劳动之间（实现在资本家身上）的同一性”，而所有权与劳动的这种新的同一性，就意味着“所有权与劳动者的分离”。

Therefore, the essence of Locke’s theory of labor-based ownership is that, under the vague concept of “the identity of ownership and labor,” it uses the pre-capitalist “identity” between ownership and the laborer to conceal the separation between ownership and the laborer in capitalist society. This confuses the different forms in which labor is realized in different modes of production, directly grafting an explanation of the ownership conditions appropriate to small-scale production onto a defense of capitalist private ownership. It “forcibly imposes the ideology of private property based on labor onto the property system based on the expropriation of the direct producer.” Consequently, this theory completely collapses in the face of the capitalist reality that “the laborer does not receive, and the receiver does not labor.”

因此，洛克劳动所有权理论的实质是，在“所有权与劳动的同一性”这个模糊概念之下，用所有权与劳动（者）之间的具有前资本主义性质的“同一性”，来掩盖所有权与劳动者之间在资本主义社会中的分离。这是把劳动在不同生产方式中的不同实现形态混为一谈，把对与小生产相适应的所有权状况的说明直接嫁接到对资本主义私人所有权的辩护上，“把以劳动为基础的私有制的意识形态硬搬到以剥夺直接生产者为基础的所有制上”。因此，这种理论在资本主义社会“劳者不获，获者不劳”的现状前就彻底破产了。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗